Walter Cronkite's Ridiculous Spin on the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam

[Hector12]

 

[Hector12]

 

[Soupnazi630]

Vietnam was never important to our security or our economy. After ten years and 55 thousand dead we decided we had had enough of that futile mistake, so we boogied on out.

All we had to do to avoid that war was to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Modern History

Yes they were iimportant.

All minh had to do was NOT start the war

 

[Hector12]

Yes they were iimportant.

All minh had to do was NOT start the war

If the election scheduled for July 1946 had been held, Ho Chi Minh would have had no reason to start the war, because he would have won a fair election by a blow out.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If the election scheduled for July 1946 had been held, Ho Chi Minh would have had no reason to start the war, because he would have won a fair election by a blow out.

He had no reason at all

 

[mikegriffith1]

By the fall of 1973, Communist control in South Vietnam was minimal--they weren't even able to access most of South Vietnam's land and population. From former senior CIA analyst Frank Snepp's book Decent Interval:

By early fall COSVN's field commanders were readily admitting to subordinates that no more than 12 percent of the population and one-fifth of the land mass of South Vietnam were even accessible to them. (Frank Snepp, Decent Interval: An Insider's Account of Saigon's Indecent End Told by the CIA's Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam, University Press of Kansas, 2014, p. 92. Note: COSVN was North Vietnam's military and political HQ in South Vietnam.)

While Congress slashed aid to South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords, the Soviets and the Chinese provided abundant aid to North Vietnam, causing a shift in the balance of power and leading to South Vietnam's collapse. From George Heritage's study The Fall of South Vietnam:

As America withdrew from its military involvement, the Soviet Union and China provided vast military and economic aid that allowed the North Vietnamese Army to increase its military might. In December 1974, the Chief of the Soviet Armed Forces, General Viktor Kulikov, visited North Vietnam to endorse its offensive plans against South Vietnam and to promise additional military aid.3

In 1973 and 1974, North Vietnam received a total of 6.3 million tons of aid from their communist allies including 85% of their oil and 100% of their heavy weapons.4 China also deployed 50,000 engineering troops to North Vietnam to keep the transport system operational. Thus, the North Vietnamese rearmed and strengthened their army.

In contrast, the United States abandoned the South Vietnamese by severely reducing military aid. . . . Congress failed to replace South Vietnamese tanks, aircraft, and naval vessels destroyed in combat after January 1973. Additionally, the American Congress drastically cut aid to South Vietnam, as the table below illustrates.

Year -- Quantity of Aid
1973 -- $2,270 million
1974 -- $1,010 million
1975 -- $700 million

America significantly reduced military aid to South Vietnam just as the North Vietnamese, using external military support, began a significant military buildup.

By 1975, the loss of U.S. military aid severely limited the capabilities of the ARVN (The Army of South Vietnam, used interchangeably with the South Vietnamese Army). ARVN combat divisions averaged between 30-40% deadline rate for all equipment, including 35% of their tanks and 50% of their armored personnel carriers.

Concurrently, ammunition shortages resulted in a 60% reduction in fire support capabilities.20 Frontline South Vietnamese soldiers received one hand grenade and 85 bullets per month; the artillery ammunition controlled supply rate was four rounds of 105mm, two rounds of 155mm, and three rounds of 175mm per day. Even the hospitals were so severely affected that bandages, surgical dressings, syringes, and needles had to be cleaned for reuse.22 Thus, the South Vietnamese Army's military capabilities decreased while the North Vietnamese became increasingly powerful.

Accordingly, the balance of power shifted to North Vietnam in 1974 as their military might increased. General Van Tien Dung, who commanded the North Vietnamese offensive forces that conquered South Vietnam, stated, "The war had moved into its final stage. The balance of forces had changed. We had grown stronger while the enemy had weakened."23 (George Heritage, The Fall of South Vietnam: An Analysis of the Campaigns, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1993, pp. 4-6)

 

[Flash]

For Vietnam to have been a significant part of American history it has always amazed me of how ignorant most people are about the war.

Most people only know what Hollywood tells them. What they see in movies and on TV. In the case of this thread what some dumbshit asshole TV reported told them. Cronkite was way off base with his flawed analysis. The VC tried to get the populace to rise up against the South Vietnamese government and the Allies and they failed big time at doing it. They got slaughtered and achieved nothing. But yet that dumbshit said they succeeded. Idiots watching him on TV believed him.

Being in Vietnam during Tet and afterwards I can guarantee you that the Communists brutality during Tet did not win any supporters among the Vietnamese people. In fact just the opposite was true and Cronkite was wrong.

Fits very well into my firm conviction that Liberals don't know any more about History than they know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[mikegriffith1]

For Vietnam to have been a significant part of American history it has always amazed me of how ignorant most people are about the war.

Most people only know what Hollywood tells them. What they see in movies and on TV. In the case of this thread what some dumbshit asshole TV reported told them. Cronkite was way off base with his flawed analysis. The VC tried to get the populace to rise up against the South Vietnamese government and the Allies and they failed big time at doing it. They got slaughtered and achieved nothing. But yet that dumbshit said they succeeded. Idiots watching him on TV believed him.

Being in Vietnam during Tet and afterwards I can guarantee you that the Communists brutality during Tet did not win any supporters among the Vietnamese people. In fact just the opposite was true and Cronkite was wrong.

Great post. Most Vietnam veterans who experienced the Tet Offensive say the same thing.

It's interesting that Cronkite's first report on Tet, filed from South Vietnam on February 13, 1968, was entirely accurate. Said Cronkite,

First and simplest, the Viet Cong suffered a military defeat. Its missions proved suicidal. If they intended to stay in the cities as a negotiating point, they failed at that. The Vietnamese army reacted better than even its most ardent supporters had anticipated. There were no defections from its ranks, as the Viet Cong apparently had expected. And, the people did not rise to support the Viet Cong, as they also were believed to have expected. (Truths and Myths About the Vietnam War, 13:12-14:03 in the video).

But just 13 days later, Cronkite gave his famous and erroneous "stalemate" analysis.

As you probably know, the North Vietnamese were stunned when they realized that our news media were portraying the Tet Offensive as a defeat and as proof that the war was unwinnable.

 

[Flash]

As you probably know, the North Vietnamese were stunned when they realized that our news media were portraying the Tet Offensive as a defeat and as proof that the war was unwinnable.

Their ignorance was underestimating the ability of stupid American Liberals to get something wrong.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Need lots of proof for this prompt and allegation. "As you probably know, the North Vietnamese were stunned when they realized that our news media were portraying the Tet Offensive as a defeat and as proof that the war was unwinnable."

 

[mikegriffith1]

Need lots of proof for this prompt and allegation. "As you probably know, the North Vietnamese were stunned when they realized that our news media were portraying the Tet Offensive as a defeat and as proof that the war was unwinnable."

Seriously? This is news to you? So do you think the North Vietnamese were expecting that our news media would portray Tet as a U.S. defeat and as proof that the war was unwinnable? Really?

For starters, there is the fact that the North Vietnamese sources on the planning for Tet say nothing about any expectation that the American news media would portray the offensive as proof that the war was unwinnable.

On the contrary, the sources state that one of the goals of the offensive was to convince the American government and people that the war could not be won. If the Hanoi Politburo planners had any inkling that the American news media would voluntarily and loudly repeat this propaganda point for them, it is quite odd that they said absolutely nothing about any such inkling or expectation.

North Vietnamese sources reveal that a propaganda campaign in the U.S. and Europe was a component of the Tet Offensive, as Dr. Roger Canfield documents in his 2019 book Vietnam: The Second Front: Winning the War, Losing the Homeland, the Peace Movement, 1968-1972. None of the sources on this propaganda campaign contain even a hint that the North Vietnamese expected that the American media would widely and loudly repeat their main talking point.

The North Vietnamese sources express absolute certainty that the offensive would succeed in its main goals of destroying ARVN as a fighting force and toppling the Saigon government, which is why Hanoi made the incredible and costly mistake of not making any retreat plans.

Since Hanoi's leaders were so certain that the offensive would be a smashing military victory, the idea that the offensive would be a crushing military defeat but that the American press would portray it as a victory never crossed their minds. If it did, it is odd that not a single North Vietnamese source indicates this.

You can find detailed information on what the North Vietnamese sources say about the planning for Tet in Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen's historic 2012 book Hanoi's War.

At the very least, Hanoi's leaders were pleasantly surprised by how the American media covered the Tet Offensive.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I asked for proof of your allegations.

You have not done so.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I asked for proof of your allegations.

You have not done so.

Uh-huh. I suspect nothing would qualify as "proof" in your mind. I pointed out that Hanoi's leaders did not expect or believe that the American media would portray Tet as proof the war was unwinnable, and I cited two scholarly sources that document this point.

I also pointed out that North Vietnamese sources show that Hanoi's leaders were certain that Tet would succeed. Obviously, then, they did not believe or expect that Tet would be a severe military defeat, much less that the U.S. media would portray the defeat as a victory.

This whole discussion is a bit surreal because no one has ever claimed that Hanoi's leaders believed or expected (1) that the Tet Offensive would be a huge military defeat, and (2) that the U.S. media would not only portray the offensive as proof the war was unwinnable but that the media would also portray it as a victory.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Uh-huh. I suspect nothing would qualify as "proof" in your mind. I pointed out that Hanoi's leaders did not expect or believe that the American media would portray Tet as proof the war was unwinnable, and I cited two scholarly sources that document this point.

I also pointed out that North Vietnamese sources show that Hanoi's leaders were certain that Tet would succeed. Obviously, then, they did not believe or expect that Tet would be a severe military defeat, much less that the U.S. media would portray the defeat as a victory.

This whole discussion is a bit surreal because no one has ever claimed that Hanoi's leaders believed or expected (1) that the Tet Offensive would be a huge military defeat, and (2) that the U.S. media would not only portray the offensive as proof the war was unwinnable but that the media would also portray it as a victory.

I am a firm supporter of primary sources and well-selected secondary information.

You throw out your opinion, only.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I am a firm supporter of primary sources and well-selected secondary information.

You throw out your opinion, only.

So would you be satisfied if I said, "North Vietnamese sources contain no indications whatsoever that Hanoi's leaders believed or expected that the American media would portray the Tet Offensive as proof the war was unwinnable"?

And, obviously, since Hanoi's leaders were certain that Tet would be a smashing victory, it is rather silly to argue that they believed or expected that the American media would paint the devastating defeat, which they thought could not happen, as a victory.

I ask you again, Are you saying that Hanoi's leaders believed or expected that the American media would portray Tet as both a military victory and as proof the war was unwinnable?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

More allegations. You are entitled to them, and I am entitled to laugh at them.

I am saying your opinions without sources are worthless.

 

[mikegriffith1]

More allegations. You are entitled to them, and I am entitled to laugh at them.

Huh? More "allegations"? Are you talking about my statement of fact that NV sources contain no evidence whatsoever that Hanoi's rulers believed or expected that the American news media would portray Tet as proof the war was unwinnable? Are you talking about my statement of fact that Hanoi's rulers were absolutely certain that Tet would be a smashing victory--so certain, in fact, that they made the fatal mistake of not preparing any retreat plans?

I am left to wonder what you have read about the war to not know these things. You really shouldn't even be discussing the war in a public forum if you don't know such basic information.

Again, you can find a detailed review of what NV and VC sources say about the planning, execution, and aftermath of Tet in Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen's book Hanoi's War. Other scholarly books that discuss this information at length include Dr. Mark Moyar's Triumph Regained and Dr. George Veith's Drawn Swords in a Distant Land.

A large chunk of the NV sources can be found in Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954-1975, translated by Merle L. Pribbenow. This was compiled by a committee of senior Vietnamese military officers (i.e., former NVA officers) and was released by Vietnam's Ministry of Defense in 1994, but only in Vietnamese. Pribbenow, one of the world's leading Vietnamese linguists, then translated it and published the translation in 2002. It's even available on Amazon as a Kindle book.

The fact that Hanoi's rulers were so certain of victory that they committed the disastrous blunder of not preparing any retreat plans is discussed in numerous books that deal with Tet. I've never seen anyone question this fact before.

I am saying your opinions without sources are worthless.

And I am saying that your posturing on this issue is absurd and discrediting. In all the numerous online discussions I've had on the Vietnam War over the years, you're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the fact that Hanoi's leaders obviously did not expect or believe that our news media would paint Tet as proof the war was unwinnable, much less that our news media would paint a crushing military defeat as a victory.

I'd be curious to know if you also think that Hanoi's thugs ever dreamed that American "journalists" would so brazenly misreport events on the ground that they would make the inexcusably bogus claim that the VC managed to occupy several floors of the American Embassy in Saigon during Tet.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Babble and flabble all you wan.

NV victory was inevitable. Period.

 

[mikegriffith1]

NV victory was inevitable. Period.

Even North Vietnamese sources refute this silly, inexcusable myth.

It seems obvious from your replies that you're in no position to be making pronouncements about the Vietnam War.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, they don't. They know as long as they had four sanctuaries outside of NV plus Russian and Chinese supplie they would eventually wear out the opposition of the American people.

Guess what? The Viets followed the principles of our revolutionaries in waiting out the British.